When two (or more)
languages are in contact, one possibility is that they both will hold their own
(maintenance of both languages); another is that one will give way partially or
completely to the other (with the possible death of one of the languages); yet
another, is that new languages will be formed.Evaluation of
the Canada  NWT Cooperation Agreement for French andAboriginal
Languages in the NWT; Literature Review;
GNWT

There are a number of possible
factors that contribute to language shift:

forced change (such as being
punished for speaking one's language);

domination of one language
group over the economy, education, and civic structures of the
society;

inter-cultural marriages;
and

geographic movement (usually
from rural to urban areas - decreasing the number of speakers in a given
area).

Researchers generally agree that
these factors are complex and inter-related; there is no simple formula for
language loss  each geographic and cultural situation is different.

There are also a few circumstances
where language shifts do not occur. These include:

geographic isolation, where a
group of speakers is not in direct contact with a dominant language (such as
small Cree and Inuit communities in northern Canada);

self-imposed cultural
boundaries (such as the case with Quebec);

externally imposed boundaries
(an isolation or segregation of cultures, such as happened on Reserves);
and

situations in which the two
languages have different functions in society (for example, religious use vs.
everyday use).

Recently, geographic isolation has
become less of an influence on the protection of Aboriginal languages because
of the widespread availability and incursion of television into remote
communities through satellite technology.

Historically, there are very few
societies that have maintained widespread bilingualism. In fact, it has been
stated that no society needs or has two languages for the same function, so
language shift is the norm. For example, within Canada, in spite of official
English-French bilingualism, there are few predominantly French-monolingual or
even bilingual communities outside of Quebec and northern New Brunswick.

The fact that language shift is
the norm is of immediate and critical concern to Aboriginal language
proponents. Any strategies to maintain and revitalize a language must
acknowledge and develop strategies to overcome this tendency for cultures to
shift, over time, to a more dominant language.

Interestingly, in Canada, an example of a reverse shift
in language use occurred during the early years of the fur trade. Many traders,
or their Metis children, learned English or French and the local Aboriginal
language. When trading furs, the early languages used in commerce were the
Aboriginal languages. Given this economic incentive, Euro-Canadians, in many
instances, made rapid language shifts.

In effect, for a language to be
maintained, there must be an immediate and perceivable benefit within at least
some aspect of people's current lives to continue to understand and speak the
traditional language. Maintaining a language for its intrinsic or historical
value does not appear to provide enough widespread incentive within a culture
group to sustain a language indefinitely, particularly when there are strong
social pressures and benefits attached to the use of another, more dominant,
language.